1.) Homosexual male protagonists living openly in a perfectly-accepting, non-homophobic society.
2.) Sex scenes, but (like Alfred Hitchcock) just because you are known for something does not mean you are not good at it. I doubt anyone would argue that Alfred, although known for it, was not also applauded for his thrillers and chillers.
3.) Things just are what they are; no need for any real detail or description (even when & where there should be).
4.) Happy endings. (Probably not so much your fault as your publishers' & what they will accept/demand from you.)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Not necessarily bad things, any of them; just what I've learned & now come to expect as standard with/from you. If that makes you hideously predictable, then so be it.
There is being predictable by genre (Alfred Hitchcock & Stephen King), which is a good thing... and then there is predictable by style (John Norman), which is a BAD thing--evne though John made a fortune off Gor & basically the same old, same old, same old (again) story told 20 slightly different ways. Arguably I believe you are edging towards the style problem, but the fact you posed this question makes that iffy, as you too are likely concerned and/or curious enough about this to be aware of the prospect.
1) Errrr. Clearly you missed quite a few of my pieces. I've got the guys facing down a homophobic nurse who files an abuse charge against the able-bodied one of the pair. I have a gay bashing that doesn't quite go down. One of my characters got kidnapped, beaten and stabbed, and this is after he and his lover had to beat off a gay bashing earlier in the piece. I have whole countries where being gay (let alone acting on it) will get you sent to the hospital indefinitely or stoned to death.
There are some pieces, Master Bear, Chain Male, Alive on the Inside, where the characters are fairly open about things, within their own subcultures. (Chain-Male does make it clear the mechanic has gotten slugged a couple times for bad gaydar)
2) Lately, sex scenes have gotten tedious. Which is why Power in the blood has several set up, more contemplated or remembered, but only one completed.
3) Most things are what they are. As Dee Kelley said, "No, I'm not going to explain what a tricorder does. That line is bullshit. A modern doctor doesn't explain his stethoscope." I don't need to explain how a perfectly ordinary library is laid out. Even if I do, the reader is going to superimpose their own "library" template on it.
I don't do a lot of physical description of characters, because it bogs things down. And because readers skip expository blocks.
"Don't tell me it's night. Show me the glitter of moonlight on broken glass."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-08-15 10:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-15 11:17 pm (UTC)However, I will concede the extremely kinky.
The D-Man Checks In
1.) Homosexual male protagonists living openly in a perfectly-accepting, non-homophobic society.
2.) Sex scenes, but (like Alfred Hitchcock) just because you are known for something does not mean you are not good at it. I doubt anyone would argue that Alfred, although known for it, was not also applauded for his thrillers and chillers.
3.) Things just are what they are; no need for any real detail or description (even when & where there should be).
4.) Happy endings. (Probably not so much your fault as your publishers' & what they will accept/demand from you.)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Not necessarily bad things, any of them; just what I've learned & now come to expect as standard with/from you. If that makes you hideously predictable, then so be it.
There is being predictable by genre (Alfred Hitchcock & Stephen King), which is a good thing... and then there is predictable by style (John Norman), which is a BAD thing--evne though John made a fortune off Gor & basically the same old, same old, same old (again) story told 20 slightly different ways. Arguably I believe you are edging towards the style problem, but the fact you posed this question makes that iffy, as you too are likely concerned and/or curious enough about this to be aware of the prospect.
Re: The D-Man Checks In
Date: 2011-08-17 11:06 pm (UTC)There are some pieces, Master Bear, Chain Male, Alive on the Inside, where the characters are fairly open about things, within their own subcultures. (Chain-Male does make it clear the mechanic has gotten slugged a couple times for bad gaydar)
2) Lately, sex scenes have gotten tedious. Which is why Power in the blood has several set up, more contemplated or remembered, but only one completed.
3) Most things are what they are. As Dee Kelley said, "No, I'm not going to explain what a tricorder does. That line is bullshit. A modern doctor doesn't explain his stethoscope." I don't need to explain how a perfectly ordinary library is laid out. Even if I do, the reader is going to superimpose their own "library" template on it.
I don't do a lot of physical description of characters, because it bogs things down. And because readers skip expository blocks.
"Don't tell me it's night. Show me the glitter of moonlight on broken glass."
4) Duh, Romance! Kinda defines the genre.